“KPCB Managing Partners discriminated against women over time by allocating smaller carried interest percentages from its various investment funds to woman than to men” Compl.¶ 25

Only male partners were invited to dinner parties and social events, some with influential clients and business associates. Compl. ¶¶ 29, 32,

“In December 2011, Randy Komisar, a Senior Partner, told Plaintiff that the personalities of women do not lead to success at KPCB, because women are quiet.” Compl. ¶ 33

Refusing to promote women comparable to men. Compl. ¶ 36

Virtually every state has passed laws similar to Minnesota’s Human Rights Act, which prevents adverse employment action by employers on the basis of various protected classes. Adverse employment action can include everything from not being invited to dinner parties with coworkers (such as Ms. Pao has alleged) to wrongful termination.

But laws meant to thwart the kind of discrimination alleged in Ms. Pao’s complaint are useless in a culture that glosses over their underlying meaning and purpose. Employers must take active steps to ensure that the importance of the sexual harassment and discrimination trainings that began surging in the 1990’s does not become passé. Sex discrimination and harassment will remain pervasive in America unless employers make their prevention and resolution a priority; for those who don’t, employees will continue to have substantial legal recourse.